Now, Rutherford is the epitome of liberal and I am by now use to his hyperbole, but I couldn’t help at wonder how he could have possibly come to this conclusion.

Of course, after a second of thought, I remembered that Rutherford (R) lives in almost constant denial at this point, so it really wasn’t much of a surprise. At one point, R made this comment:

My God was this summit a Rorschach test or what? The right wing sees their total public humiliation as some kind of triumph.

Now, for those who don’t have a the faintest clue, Wikipedia (I know, an authority source) says this:

The Rorschach test (German pronunciation: [ˈʁoɐʃax]; also known as the Rorschach inkblot test or simply the Inkblot test) is a psychological test in which subjects’ perceptions of inkblotspsychologicalalgorithms, or both. Some psychologists use this test to examine a person’s personality characteristics and emotional functioning. It has been employed to detect an underlying thought disorder, especially in cases where patients are reluctant to describe their thinking processes openly [emphasis mine].

So this test sounds like just the thing to use when talking to a liberal. I mean, we’re talking about a political group of people who rely on emotion, as opposed to reason, and who regularly struggle when asked to explain their delusional premises.

So, with that in mind, I submit my one and only ink blot vis a vis health care reform.

National Job Approval- Barak Obama Health Care

I’ve tried to get R for some time now to explain to me how he can justify doing something- in the name of the people mind you- without either the consent or will of the people. Needless to say, I’m still waiting for his response.

Or am I? According to R:

The Dems will get their house in order. The bill will pass. The country will find out that the world did not come to an end. And the GOP will look like the losers they are come November.

Let me focus in on The country will find out that the world did not come to an end comment. From this, we can conclude that while R recognizes that the people emphatically do not support the current health care reform effort, they’ll eventually come round to their betters beliefs and accept their lot in life, as dictated by R and his ilk.

I think maybe another definition is in order here…

Elitism is the belief or attitude that those individuals who are considered members of the elite — a select group of people with, intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight or those who view their own views as so

Sean Hannity had Frank Luntz on his Fox News show to discuss the public reaction to the summit.

Another comment my liberal friend has made is:

Let’s understand this. They were not gathered there yesterday to discuss process. They were there to discuss policy.

It is convenient for R, and liberals in general, to lament the discussion of process. I mean, it sounds so much better to cast aside our troubles in this journey, and at this juncture it is most valuable to discuss the vehicle taking us forward rather than the road we came on. We Conservatives take umbrage at that since we are essentially riding in a stolen vehicle and we’d just assume not be party to this crime. By ignoring the process to here, we would be tacitly accepting that said process was somehow legitimate, which it was not by any measure.

As for policy, the One and the half’s didn’t do so well on that either. The fact that you have Obama calling his own bill a prop says something. I’d be willing to guess that if we showed the stack of money it’ll take to pay for this monstrosity, he’d call that a prop too.

What’s interesting is this, of the comments made by the Republicans, I think Paul Ryan’s were the most damaging to the President, the Dems and the current health care reform initiative, and I’ve yet to hear any one proponent of the current health care reform plan refute his points:

• “This bill does not control costs (or) reduce deficits. Instead, (it) adds a new health care entitlement when we have no idea how to pay for the entitlements we already have.”

• “The bill has 10 years of tax increases, about half a trillion dollars, with 10 years of Medicare cuts, about half a trillion dollars, to pay for six years of spending. The true 10-year cost (is) $2.3 trillion.”

• “The bill takes $52 billion in higher Social Security tax revenues and counts them as offsets. But that’s really reserved for Social Security. So either we’re double-counting them or we don’t intend on paying those Social Security benefits.”

• “The bill treats Medicare like a piggy bank, (raiding) half a trillion dollars not to shore up Medicare solvency, but to spend on this new government program.”

• “The chief actuary of Medicare (says) as much as 20% of Medicare providers will either go out of business or have to stop seeing Medicare beneficiaries.”

• “Millions of seniors who have chosen Medicare Advantage (Medicare through a private insurer) will lose the coverage that they now enjoy.”

• “When you strip out the double-counting and … gimmicks, the full 10-year cost of the bill has a $460 billion deficit. The second 10-year cost of this bill has a $1.4 trillion deficit.”

• “The ‘doc fix’ (restoring cuts in Medicare reimbursements) costs $371 billion … a price tag (that) made the score look bad. (So) that provision was taken out, and (put) in stand-alone legislation. But ignoring these costs does not remove them from the backs of taxpayers. Hiding spending does not reduce spending.”

• “Are we bending the cost curve down or are we bending the cost curve up? If you look at your own chief actuary at Medicare, we’re bending it up. He’s claiming that we’re going up $222 billion, adding more to the unsustainable fiscal situation we have.”

The Dems will likely try to use Reconciliation to get it passed in the Senate, provided the new bill will pass in the House (which is by no means guaranteed). They will do this in spite of the fact that the American people are adamantly opposed to the procedure for this issue. They will pass a bill that the American people are adamantly opposed to in substance. And, as such, they will collectively commit political suicide this November.

Liberals are contributing to many negatives in this country, but this is probably the best measure yet of how out of touch the Dems are with the American people.

The survey indicates a partisan divide on the question: only 37 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of Independents and nearly 7 in 10 Republicans say the federal government poses a threat to the rights of Americans.

The opinion of Obama is now 39 favor the President versus 34 who do not favor him. This is down 15 points from April of last year and 21 points from inauguration.

This is important, because while his approval rating has declined, he has maintained better favorability numbers, which have- to a degree- removed him from blame on some of the key issues upsetting the American people. But with his favorability declining, expect him to start to share in the blame. In fact, we’re already seeing this as a majority to Americans do not believe Obama deserves a second term.

Obama’s approval ratings in the poll declined as well to 46% with 45% disapproving. In fact, the only thing Obama enjoys a majority of support on is Terrorism at 55%. The remaining key issues of Foreign Policy (47%), Economy (42%), Health Care (35%), and the Budget Deficit (31%) are declining. What was particulary interesting is that the poll mentions that, “51% describe their feelings toward the Obama administration as dissatisfied or angry, while slightly fewer (47%) feel enthusiastic or satisfied.”

But here is the real kicker, after the One and a Half went out to tout how the Stimulus ‘saved us from the brink’, the American people aren’t buying it. 6% believe the stimulus has created jobs- 6%!!!

We aren’t buying the rhetoric coming out of the White House on the stimulus. Remember when we were told that the Stimulus had saved some 650,000 jobs, then suddenly jumped to 2 million jobs “saved or created”. When pressed, the administration trotted out a thoroughbred fit for the glue factory of a report that was replete with made up zip codes for non-existent Congressional districts that had “saved or created” imaginary jobs.

At 6%, it doesn’t matter that the Emperor is naked, he has no audience anyway since, per the poll, 56% don’t think Obama even has a clear plan to create jobs.

But here is a particularly telling element of the poll. 78% now believe that government is run by a few big interests. In July of 2004, that number was 64%, in August of 1995 it was 79% and in December of 1985 it was 54%. Here’s the interesting bit, let’s look at these years against their respective administration: Now- Obama, 2004- Bush, 1995- Clinton and 1985- Reagan.

Interesting how when the “party of the people” is in office, the opinion of the people is that the government isn’t working for the people.

And now for the cherry on the top:

The poll also finds a desire for smaller government. 59% of Americans think the government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals, a percentage that has been consistent for many years. 56% would choose a smaller government providing fewer services over a bigger government providing more services, up from 48% last spring and the highest percentage in more than a decade.

“A week after the Sawyer interview, the president had a stunning and revealing exchange with Sen. Blanche Lincoln, the Arkansas Democrat likely to lose her 2010 re-election campaign. He was meeting with Senate Democrats to urge them to continue with his legislative agenda. Mrs. Lincoln took the opportunity to beseech him to change it. She urged him to distance his administration from “people who want extremes,” and to find “common ground” with Republicans in producing legislation that would give those in business the “certainty” they need to create jobs.

While answering, Mr. Obama raised his voice slightly and quickened his cadence. “If the price of certainty is essentially for us to adopt the exact same proposals that were in place leading up to the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression . . . the result is going to be the same. I don’t know why we would expect a different outcome pursuing the exact same policy that got us in this fix in the first place.” He continued: “If our response ends up being, you know . . . we don’t want to stir things up here,” then “I don’t know why people would say, ‘Boy, we really want to make sure those Democrats are in Washington fighting for us.’

…

The Washington Post’s Charles Lane, one of the few journalists to note the exchange, said he found it revealing in two ways: First, the president equates becoming more centrist with becoming more like George W. Bush, and second, he [Obama] apparently sees movement to the center as a political loser.”

Noonan essentially claims that Obama is simply doubling down on the Bush administration and is not providing fundamental change like the major change actors of our times- FDR and Reagan.

It is an interesting premise by Noonan, though I disagree with it.

Considering that Obama, in a Gallup poll, is more or less in a dead heat at 44-42 against a generic GOP candidate, and in a new CNN poll is down 44-52 on whether or not he deserves a second term, one must wonder what is going on inside Camelot II.

One of the things Noonan bemoans is that Obama is failing to triangulate or adjust to the political environment. She states, “But now it is 2010, and Mr. Bush is gone. Mr. Obama is left with America, and he does not, really, understand it. That is why he thinks moving to the center would be political death, when moving to the center and triangulating, as Bill Clinton did, might give him a new lease on life.”

I think by the end she gets it, but unfortunately doesn’t give it the attention it deserves.

“Democrats in Congress, on the other hand, may choose this spring to save themselves by revolting—not only against the Republicans, but against the possible one-termer who jeopardizes their positions.”

I disagree with Noonan on whether Obama knows the American people, I think he just doesn’t care. He’s an ideologue. This is a man who selected a church that preaches a fringe, essentially racist message, and absorbed it for 20 years (a very interesting article on Obama’s autobiography Dreams from my Father). His associations with radicals like William Ayers (who likely had a large part in writing The Audacity of Truth), and his current cadre of who’s who of leftist politics acting as advisers is telling.

Obama has an agenda and is willing to do anything to get it, to include expending the Dem control of Congress. Some have said that it was a mistake for Obama to pick Emanuel as his Chief of Staff, I disagree, Emanuel is exactly the type of guy you want when you are going to ram something through, like “change”, at any cost.

Consider this, it is rare- and very abnormal- that an administration does not put forward their own legislative draft on their signature issue. The fact that Obama didn’t, and left it to Congress to write says a couple things to me, the first being he didn’t want to have any part of the blame for what was written, relying on the far-left in the House and Senate to reach the goals he wanted. I think he had every expectation that it would make it through, considering the Dem super majority he enjoyed, and all he would have to do is sign it. This is reinforced by the administrations efforts to just get ‘something’ passed, versus something along the ideological bent of the House. Secondly, because of the machinations he has employed to get this done, no one, not even his ‘allies’ are safe from his agenda.

If the GOP take the House, and Pelosi loses her speakership, Obama will not lose one bit of sleep. He’ll have his foil, blaming the last two years of his administration on the GOP regardless of what does, or doesn’t get passed, and the Dem woes in the House or Senate will be just too bad, so sad.

It’s high time folks quit underestimating the ideological bent of this administration and what they are willing to do to get their way. I mean, anyone who’ll throw Grandma under the bus, is capable of anything…

Roland Martin– “Obama’s critics keep blasting him for Chicago-style politics. So, fine. Channel your inner Al Capone and go gangsta against your foes. Let ’em know that if they aren’t with you, they are against you, and will pay the price.”

You know, it’s funny, I just did a pretty exhaustive search and I can’t find a single instance of messier Martin calling on the Senate to give Bush’s nominees an up or down vote. Who knew that ole Roland was so embracing of the processes and traditions of the U.S. Senate? I mean surely there’s some instance of Roland calling out Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D) of Nevade for his block on Bush’s appointments? After all, isn’t that what all the hub-bub was about when John McCain (R)- the maverick- and his merry gang of 14 negotiated a compromise with Dems on Bush judicial nominees? Hmmmmmmmm, after Reid went to so much effort to block Bush’s recess appointments in 2007- bemoaning the practice as undemocratic- I’m wondering if others might find this statement somewhat hypocritical?

Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution: “The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.”

So, Obama can make his appointments, just like Bush was forced to after YEARS of Dem obstruction against his appointments. And like Bush, when the next session ends, Obama will be forced to re-submit his appointments. But I’m going to go out on a limb and say that Obama is going to have some real problems with his appointments, predominantly because I now believe that the GOP will take back the Senate in November. I know, I may be a dreamer, but with the way the American people are turning on the Dems, I think it is possible. I just want the Dems to admit that they’re talking out of both sides of their head on this…

In an oped in USA Today, John Brennan — Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism — responds to critics of the Obama administration’s counterterrorism policies by saying “Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda.”

OK, so when I first read this, I thought it pretty incredulous. Considering the host of issues revolving around terrorism and this administration, I find this effort to stymie any criticism pretty shallow.

This little jewel- a huge piece of support to those in combat- stated this in April 2007. Now, this was especially memorable to me because I was in Iraq at the time. Most of us chuckled because, by this time, we already saw Reid and most Dems working to hurt us.

I don’t say this in jest, when you look at Brennan’s statement, “Politically motivated criticism” he describes exactly what has occurred this century. There has always been partisan bickering, there always will be, but it was 2000 and Al Gore’s loss that sent the left over the edge.

The only time the Dems were willing to put partisan issues aside was immediately after 9/11, because the American people would not stand for it. But that didn’t stand long. The vitriol of the 2004 campaign was numbing, to the point that you had a major news network and evening news anchor actually making stuff up.

When you look at Katrina and its aftermath, it is nothing but politically motivated criticism. Anyone who has actually looked at the facts would tell you that what was projected in the media and what was the reality of the situation were miles, if not leagues, apart. The Mayor and Governor- both Dems- own 90% of the fault of Katrina, yet they tried- and with huge media support- to lay it at Bush’s door. It was beyond intellectually dishonest.

And since we’re on the topic of intellectual dishonesty, let us return to Brennan’s statement. He said it is:

“[n]aive to think that transferring Abdulmutallab to military custody would have caused an outpouring of information. There is little difference between military and civilian custody, other than an interrogator with a uniform. The suspect gets access to a lawyer, and interrogation rules are nearly identical.”

For me, a couple things immediately jumped out. First was that somehow, there is little to no difference in interrogation techniques. This may be true from a technical perspective, however, when you- as a detainee- know that you are in a civilian legal process versus being a enemy combatant, then the fear factor is significantly diminished. I’m not talking about fear of being waterboarded, I’m talking about knowing what the future might hold. Secondly, we know that he supposedly starting talking after plea bargaining began. This should make anyone’s skin crawl- we’re negotiating with a terrorist to lesson his sentence should he provide us with information- something we would not have to do if he was in the military process.

The second thing that jumped out at me was this, “There is little difference between military and civilian custody, other than an interrogator with a uniform. The suspect gets access to a lawyer, and interrogation rules are nearly identical.” Why in the hell are we then putting Khalid Sheik Muhammad into the federal system? If there is little difference, then why break with decades of precedence and apply OUR constitutional rights to a terrorist responsible for killing thousands? This statement demonstrates how shallow Eric Holder and the rest of the Obama administration are on the issue of terrorism.

We’ve been subjected to rhetoric describing how different Obama is from Bush, how he is so much better and how he is applying standards once again, yet whenever he gets into hot water on an issue, what does he do? ‘We’re doing the same thing as the Bush administration.’ So, is Obama a change or just Bush Dark?

There are legitimate concerns on how Obama is attending to the issue of terrorism. To call those criticisms unpatriotic or a boon to al-Qaeda is not only dishonest and transparent, but extremely ignorant.